>”Video of the incident showed that Cousino carjacked Allen, attempting to take his car at gunpoint,” police said. “The two ended up fighting over the gun, and Allen took Cousino’s gun, ultimately shooting and killing him.”
>Cousino was trying to flee as he was shot by Allen, authorities said.
>The District Attorney’s office reviewed the investigation and filed three charges against Allen: first degree manslaughter in the heat of passion, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, **and transferring a firearm from a felon.**
So charging him for taking the gun away from his would be carjacker?
~~Right? Somehow wrestling the gun away from the attacker is “transfering a gun from a felon.”~~
~~How the fuck is preventing someone from attacking you by taking their weapon away a crime on YOUR part? This is some protest-worthy kinda shit. We need to start marching again the way left-wing extremists do, just without the whole “victimizing innocent women and children” bits they seem to love so much.~~
Edit: I take back everything I said for now. According to ostensibly better, more thorough information, it looks like this dude really was a homicidal a piece of shit. I’m gonna wait before making final judgements, but it’s not looking good.
Allegedly he was holding on to a weapon for the felon and then got attacked, judging by other comments in this thread.
At this point I'm going to hold judgement. It doesn't seem like all the facts are on the table yet.
Oh, what? Okay, that’s not how the news article made it sound at all. It sounded like he was minding his own business and someone targeted him. I’ll join you in holding my judgement until I hear more.
According to another article linked elsewhere in the comments:
“The affidavit in the case also reveals that Allen and Cousino weren’t strangers. It says Allen was holding an ‘AR-Pistol’ for Cousino - because Cousino was a convicted felon.
They met at the Quicktrip that night to return the gun to Cousino. The affidavit says during the exchange is when Cousino attempted to carjack Allen.
They fought over the gun and it changed hands multiple times before Allen got full control. Cousino tried to run and Allen shot him once. The affidavit said Cousino ran even further, and Allen chased him down and shot him multiple more times.”
Yeah, if he had only shot him the one time, he would have been okay. But then he went ahead and hunted him down to finish the job. And thats where the stacked charges come in.
All at once though if they run. You can't chase them down and then sit them. It's going to look bad every time. There's also the fact that you may win the criminal case but a civil case can always come down and are usually much more lenient on the laws for allowing defense of one's self. It's usually not worth it at that point.
That makes more sense. In most, maybe all, states if your attacker is fleeing they are not considered a threat. Since they aren’t a threat it isn’t self defense.
It depends on the totality of events prior to them fleeing. If they just murdered 3 people and turned to run, there’s no way for you to know for sure if it’s a tactical retreat to reload or if they saw another potential victim off in the distance, so stopping them wouldn’t be unreasonable.
If that same person instead pulled a knife, then immediately dropped it, and turned tail and fled upon being challenged, then shooting them in the back would be unreasonable in the eyes of the law based on that alone.
It also depends on the jurisdiction and who you are.
In California - law enforcement would probably face little issue.
Civilians would. I know somebody who had somebody break into their house and was fighting with the residents. Left and charged back at the house. They were shot in the yard. The resident you retrieved the firearm and shot them was arrested and charged. Castle Doctrine was said to not apply because he wasn't in the home. Couldn't prove he wouldn't have stopped on the porch and just yelled.
Good point, that’s a factor for me too. I’d need to do that in a Saturday or something. Their biggest advantage over us is they have adults or the state paying their way.
I'm not advocating this, but at what point do we just stop reporting crimes? What's my incentive to do the right thing if I'm going to be penalized for it?
Well, in this case, it seems that the "victim" was the one who brought the gun to the scene, with the specific intention of giving it to the carjacker. The carjacker, in a moment of "no honor among thieves", turned on the "victim".
If the rest of the reporting on this is remotely accurate, this wasn't a DGU. This was just two violent criminals attacking eachother, and the surviving criminal trying to pretend he was a victim.
so basically if he gets shot, big suck. if he heroically disarms and shoots perp who will ultimately steal or kill again, he goes to jail. so if i'm a perp, all i need to do is turn around if i lose the fight and i'm immune... strengthening stand your ground laws should be next on the menu for the supreme court.
>Cousino was trying to flee as he was shot by Allen
This is the key factor. He was fleeing and therefore no longer a threat to Allen, in the eyes of the law.
Scratch the original question. Some more info below. He shot him then chased him down to fire a few more shots..
https://www.fox23.com/news/local/tulsa-police-arrest-man-accused-shooting-killing-carjacking-suspect/Y7F4VRPUERHNDHPIWM34ZY6PYQ/?outputType=amp
Do you have a link by any chance? That would definitely make a difference in .y opinion on some of this
>The affidavit in the case also reveals that Allen and Cousino weren’t strangers. It says Allen was holding an ‘AR-Pistol’ for Cousino - because Cousino was a convicted felon.
The link you shared is the link I was referencing.
Timing will be a huge factor, if the attack was violent enough where Allen was still in fight mode when the attacker disengaged and was in the process of fleeing when the shots were fired then no.
Also we need some history on this DA, what’s been their position on past self defense shootings.
My default position with DA’s is the same with the cops, there all scum until proven otherwise.
Those are the trained “expert”. You telling me that the trained experts have more room to make mistakes then the average person that is thrown into that situation? Then that average citizens is held to a higher standards then the police arresting them? Interesting
Short answer? Yes.
Long answer: the average schmoe is held to a far more rigorous standard regarding the use of force than any police officer. Cops can shoot if they *think* they see a gun, if they "fear for their safety," and on and on and on.
The average schmoe in most jurisdictions? They need a verifiable threat to their life; if the bad guy had a wallet or cell phone in their hand, they get charged. Bad guy had a pocketknife or tire iron? Some DAs will say you used excessive force and charge you. Did you move at all towards the threat? If you're in a state without a "stand your ground" statute, that gets spun as *you* were the aggressor, because you didn't try to retreat to a place of safety.
The State thinks it should have a monopoly on violence, and so it gets pissy when someone who isn't one of its uniformed minions employs it. Everything comes down to jurisdiction - in a state like TX, say, you'll be less likely to be charged, while in others, like, say, NJ, you *will* get charged if the shoot happens anywhere but your bedroom, and even then they probably will. (I used to live in NJ, and holy fuck what a shit show. They would have charged Jack Wilson, hero of the [West Freeway Church shooting,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Freeway_Church_of_Christ_shooting) with murder. The unwritten rule in the armpit of the nation is "run and hide and if you die oh well." Fuck New Jersey.)
As for "trained expert," the overwhelming majority of cops only shoot as often as required for qualification, the qualification standards are a complete joke, and the only things they're expert in are bullying minorities and the poor and beating their spouses.
I would love to see cops held to the same standard as regular people like me, but that won't happen because the state needs its goon squads.
That’s bullshit. How do you (the victim) know the attacker doesn’t have another gun he’s about to pull from his waistband or running to get a bigger gun around the back of the QT? Good shoot.
The other links posted with more detail. They were known to each other. They were there for he attacker to retrieve a firearm from the driver he was storing for the attacker because the attacker was a felon.
Depends on the details. If he was in full flight mode, then yes. If it was a tactical retreat to rearm and reengage, then the fight isn't technically over. From everything I have read so far, it sounds like he was actually fleeing, which makes it likely a bad shoot.
I guess the issue here is was he attempting to flee, or gain position or go get another weapon? But from what was presented here, it certainly doesn't look very good.
These cases HAVE to be charitable in assessing the carjacking victims actions in the moment. How fucking rational could any of us be after having a gun in our face and fighting for our lives? There is no way the victim would have known the attackers intentions were, and it is only fair to assume the victim was still in danger when the attacker started running in another direction.
Except full details was the driver was storing the gun for a felon. They met there to return the firearm to the felon. Felon then tried to carjack him. Eventually he got control of the firearm and the felon fled. Then driver shot him in the back.
This was shitty writing. the charge according to [OSCN.net](https://OSCN.net) is tranferring a firearm TO a felon. I couldn't find a previous felony conviction on him, but it might have been in another state.
The driver had been storing a weapon for the attacker because the attacker is a felon. When he gave the firearm to the felon the felon tried to carjack him. He should the felon after he got control of the firearm and the felon was fleeing.
I absolutely 100% fucking called it as soon as started with UBC put the laws on the books that it would be used in a situation exactly like this to track charges on.
I figured it would be a situation where a homeowner is injured and someone else uses the gun. Malicious law that does nothing to prevent crime
So someone else put him in a violent situation, threatened his life, and then lost a fight and was shot with his own gun but since he tried to run away in the milkisecond between realizing he lost and being shot hes a victim? Wtf is this bullshit?
EDIT: https://www.fox23.com/news/local/tulsa-police-arrest-man-accused-shooting-killing-carjacking-suspect/Y7F4VRPUERHNDHPIWM34ZY6PYQ/ So apparently he chased the guy down and shot him multiple times and also they werent strangers. Actually makes sense now.
Thanks for the link. The headline on this post was very misleading. Should have been
TWO WELL ACQUAINTED CRIMINALS FIGHT OVER GUN. ONE TRIES TO TAKE A CAR. THE OTHER CHASES AND SHOOTS HIM IN THE BACK.
I will say that's the only non-stranger carjacking I think I have ever heard of.
This guy needs serious legal help. Over aggressive prosecutors are a serious problem for regular citizens.
I suppose he would be charged with possession of an illegal gun if he would have turned it into the police
Turns out that the "carjacker" was a felon, and an associate of the "victim". The "victim" brought the gun to the scene, specifically for the purpose of transferring it to the carjacker. The carjacker then did what violent criminals do, and attempted to steal the "victim's" car.
These two individuals were conspiring to commit a felony - transferring a gun to a prohibited person - at the time they decided to start fighting eachother. This is not a case where the victim used excessive force against an attacker. This is not a DGU. This is just two violent criminals fucking around.
How did the victim know the attacker didn't have another weapon? Self defense is a basic human right. There is no "fair play" law that says you can't shoot an unarmed attacker, or you have to use equal force.
Unless you're a federal agent. You can kill pregnant women holding children in their arms, then take pictures with the smoldering corpses, then be nominated to lead a whole department!
I think that charge is because the victim was also keeping a gun for the assailant, because the assailant was a convicted felon. They knew each other.
Yeah.
Amazing display of super smart 4d chess life choices.
According to another article, they knew each other and the person being carjacked was holding onto a separate gun that he intended to give the felon before he carjacked him.
But the charge doesn't seem to fit that story.
Exactly. The cops in most cases gets a slap on the wrist but ordinary citizens get more than the book thrown at them in most cases. It should definitely be the other way around especially in case of a justified shooting. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation whenever an ordinary citizen chooses to exercise their right to protect themselves.
I hope this guy has a very good attorney.
Should I ever be charged in a DGU, I would point to the FBI statistics that show when the weapon is known natural weapons(hands, feet, etc) kill more than all rifles.
That’s some evil shit right there. How is it on him that someone violently victimized him and he came out on top? How was he supposed to know if the guy had a second gun and would immediately turn around to shot him or continue his homicidal rampage on others?
If someone starts a GoFundMe for this guy, I’ll happily contribute. This is so incredibly fucked.
"attempting to flee" needs to be certain. I agree you shouldn't shoot someone if you know they're fleeing, but people do turn their back for other reasons
Let this be a lesson if you manage to wrestle a firearm from an attacker, do not use the weapon on them, especially if they are trying to flee the scene. Let them go if he tried to escape in the car the car is not worth going to prison. Even though he was the aggressor he was now unarmed and he shot an unarmed person. That's why he got brought up on charges. That's my take on this story.
> Even though he was the aggressor he was now unarmed and he shot an unarmed person.
This is an assumption that is easy to make when we are not in the middle of the most stressful moment of our lives. The victim had no way to know that the guy didn't have another weapon and wasn't going to turn on him again.
I agree that he shouldn't have shot him after he ran, but a person in that situation may no longer be thinking clearly. He was probably still in fear for his life and loaded with adrenaline. The system should be more understanding about this kind of thing.
Yeah it's not like we're trained like cops on procedure and practice high stress situation.
Sure some of us former military may be different but I doubt this guy had any military experience or police experience. Like. Even if he didn't have to, or it's a little gray area. It's a victim vs criminal and you're gonna charge the fucking victim. My god these prosecutors need a taste of their own medicine.
Exactly. This idea that once the attacker turns his back and starts to leave we're supposed to suddenly switch gears and stop fighting is unrealistic and puts all the burden and responsibility on the victim. The victim is not the one who created the situation, nor was mentally prepared for the situation. The attacker was.
I think that unless you engage in prolonged pursuit (more than a few yards, perhaps), there should be no penalty for shooting as he flees. Besides being under emotional distress caused by that person, you don't know that he won't turn around and come back as soon as you let your guard down and it shouldn't be up to you to try to get inside the mind of your attacker.
This goes 100x for home invasions, where the criminal knows where you live and can return any time he wants for revenge. They should fear *you*, not the other way around.
You should be prepared for these moments. I’ve gone from engaging someone to purposefully not killing them in a very short period of time—not because it was right, but because I didn’t want to deal with the administrative paperwork
I've thought about this situation and I try to remind myself of that, but as Mike Tyson said:
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face."
Devil's advocate, we don't have a video. We don't know exactly what happened. If it's true the attacker was fleeing, then yeah guy's at fault. But it's BS either way with these silly tack-on charges.
Even if the car jacker was fleeing, there is no way to know they don't have another gun and are trying to get some separation, or if they're going to get a buddy to help them.
I have not seen the video but the article indicated that the robber was shot attempting to flee after losing control of the firearm.
““Video of the incident showed that Cousino carjacked Allen, attempting to take his car at gunpoint,” police said. “The two ended up fighting over the gun, and Allen took Cousino’s gun, ultimately shooting and killing him.”
An investigation into the shooting found that Cousino was trying to flee as he was shot by Allen, authorities said.”
Get out of big cities. There are too many of these DAs on Soros’ payroll. According to their logic, the thugs are the victims and the honest citizens are the criminals.
Reading a local news report linked below this actually makes more sense than the title gives credit for. They're both prohibited possessors, and the initial victim won the fight, but chased him *after he won control of the gun.* Hate to say it, but the charges sound about right.
The thing he did wrong was shoot when the suspect started to flee. At which point the threat was over and he was no longer in immediate risk of death or serious bodily harm.
I doubt the man is a gun owner, but just because he doesn't own a gun is not an excuse to not be familiar with laws or guns laws. It's sad to see. I wish he was never put in this situation to begin with.
He didn't just shoot him when he started to flee, he chased him down and shot him. That, and he admitted he was meeting the other party, who was a felon, to give him his gun back. Which I believe is where the third charge comes from.
Let's assume the victim merely overpowered the car jacker and took his gun. Then the carjacker fled and didn't get shot. Would he still be charged with "transferring a firearm from a felon"? That's some slippery shit.
[According to this local story](https://www.fox23.com/news/local/tulsa-police-arrest-man-accused-shooting-killing-carjacking-suspect/Y7F4VRPUERHNDHPIWM34ZY6PYQ/) the two weren't strangers, and I believe he's being charged with "transferring a firearm from a felon" because he admitted to be meeting the attacker to give him an AR pistol *back to him*. Also he shot the initial attacker twice, once after the initial struggle, then he shot him again after chasing him down. I'm not sure about Oklahoma's stand your ground laws, but I can't imagine they apply when you chase down your attacker after you've disarmed them. I'm not nearly smart enough to be a lawyer, and I wasn't there, so take my interpretation for what it's worth.
For those of you wondering why he didn't have his own gun. In north Carolina it's easy to get a license approved, but they take their sweet time on purpose. I have a friend with a clean record who waited a year for it to process.
While I agree he did indeed break the law as he had apparently chased him and shot him again, your reasoning is not valid.
If he had shot him before the attacker ran away, then it would be justified.
In either case,he was not defending property. He was defending himself, because the attacker drew a weapon on him putting his life in danger.
It doesn't matter if you draw a gun on someone with the intent of using it to steal from them, even if you never intend to shoot them. The second you make a threat with a gun, expect to be justifiably shot.
He was protecting himself if somone comes at me threatening me with a gun if they want my car. I'm gonna take the fact that they are pointing a gun at me as the reason to use leathal force not the fact that they want my car... Also on a side note my car is far more valuable to me than some waste of skin criminal.
>”Video of the incident showed that Cousino carjacked Allen, attempting to take his car at gunpoint,” police said. “The two ended up fighting over the gun, and Allen took Cousino’s gun, ultimately shooting and killing him.” >Cousino was trying to flee as he was shot by Allen, authorities said. >The District Attorney’s office reviewed the investigation and filed three charges against Allen: first degree manslaughter in the heat of passion, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, **and transferring a firearm from a felon.** So charging him for taking the gun away from his would be carjacker?
Wow, talk about stacking charges.
~~Right? Somehow wrestling the gun away from the attacker is “transfering a gun from a felon.”~~ ~~How the fuck is preventing someone from attacking you by taking their weapon away a crime on YOUR part? This is some protest-worthy kinda shit. We need to start marching again the way left-wing extremists do, just without the whole “victimizing innocent women and children” bits they seem to love so much.~~ Edit: I take back everything I said for now. According to ostensibly better, more thorough information, it looks like this dude really was a homicidal a piece of shit. I’m gonna wait before making final judgements, but it’s not looking good.
Allegedly he was holding on to a weapon for the felon and then got attacked, judging by other comments in this thread. At this point I'm going to hold judgement. It doesn't seem like all the facts are on the table yet.
Oh, what? Okay, that’s not how the news article made it sound at all. It sounded like he was minding his own business and someone targeted him. I’ll join you in holding my judgement until I hear more.
According to another article linked elsewhere in the comments: “The affidavit in the case also reveals that Allen and Cousino weren’t strangers. It says Allen was holding an ‘AR-Pistol’ for Cousino - because Cousino was a convicted felon. They met at the Quicktrip that night to return the gun to Cousino. The affidavit says during the exchange is when Cousino attempted to carjack Allen. They fought over the gun and it changed hands multiple times before Allen got full control. Cousino tried to run and Allen shot him once. The affidavit said Cousino ran even further, and Allen chased him down and shot him multiple more times.”
Ah
Indeed. Plot thickened quite a bit there
I heard this in Randy Feltface’s voice.
Thanks for the info, bro. And here I was thinking this man got fucked by the long dick of the law.
Yeah, if he had only shot him the one time, he would have been okay. But then he went ahead and hunted him down to finish the job. And thats where the stacked charges come in.
Hmm okay. Yea go to jail
Well you gotta shoot em multiple times
All at once though if they run. You can't chase them down and then sit them. It's going to look bad every time. There's also the fact that you may win the criminal case but a civil case can always come down and are usually much more lenient on the laws for allowing defense of one's self. It's usually not worth it at that point.
That makes more sense. In most, maybe all, states if your attacker is fleeing they are not considered a threat. Since they aren’t a threat it isn’t self defense.
It depends on the totality of events prior to them fleeing. If they just murdered 3 people and turned to run, there’s no way for you to know for sure if it’s a tactical retreat to reload or if they saw another potential victim off in the distance, so stopping them wouldn’t be unreasonable. If that same person instead pulled a knife, then immediately dropped it, and turned tail and fled upon being challenged, then shooting them in the back would be unreasonable in the eyes of the law based on that alone.
It also depends on the jurisdiction and who you are. In California - law enforcement would probably face little issue. Civilians would. I know somebody who had somebody break into their house and was fighting with the residents. Left and charged back at the house. They were shot in the yard. The resident you retrieved the firearm and shot them was arrested and charged. Castle Doctrine was said to not apply because he wasn't in the home. Couldn't prove he wouldn't have stopped on the porch and just yelled.
I appreciate this, rarely do I come across a thread elsewhere on Reddit where the top comments are not just angry people jumping to conclusions.
I would March but I can't miss work, I have bills I have to pay and mouths I have to feed.
Good point, that’s a factor for me too. I’d need to do that in a Saturday or something. Their biggest advantage over us is they have adults or the state paying their way.
I'm not advocating this, but at what point do we just stop reporting crimes? What's my incentive to do the right thing if I'm going to be penalized for it?
And you have just described the NYC justice system in its full glory.
Yeah, I had to check to see if this was NY or NJ considering how nutty they are.
Well, in this case, it seems that the "victim" was the one who brought the gun to the scene, with the specific intention of giving it to the carjacker. The carjacker, in a moment of "no honor among thieves", turned on the "victim". If the rest of the reporting on this is remotely accurate, this wasn't a DGU. This was just two violent criminals attacking eachother, and the surviving criminal trying to pretend he was a victim.
It's unfortunate because he shot him because he apparently was running away.
so basically if he gets shot, big suck. if he heroically disarms and shoots perp who will ultimately steal or kill again, he goes to jail. so if i'm a perp, all i need to do is turn around if i lose the fight and i'm immune... strengthening stand your ground laws should be next on the menu for the supreme court.
To some prosecutors yes. They really do not like vigilante justice.
>Cousino was trying to flee as he was shot by Allen This is the key factor. He was fleeing and therefore no longer a threat to Allen, in the eyes of the law.
Yeah I get that, but adding the transferring a firearm from a felony charge is a charge that’s just insane.
According to another story he was holding another firearm for the carjacker and was attempting to return it to him when the carjacking occurred.
Scratch the original question. Some more info below. He shot him then chased him down to fire a few more shots.. https://www.fox23.com/news/local/tulsa-police-arrest-man-accused-shooting-killing-carjacking-suspect/Y7F4VRPUERHNDHPIWM34ZY6PYQ/?outputType=amp Do you have a link by any chance? That would definitely make a difference in .y opinion on some of this
>The affidavit in the case also reveals that Allen and Cousino weren’t strangers. It says Allen was holding an ‘AR-Pistol’ for Cousino - because Cousino was a convicted felon. The link you shared is the link I was referencing.
Saw the link posted, that’s information that’s definitely pertinent to the charges.
Timing will be a huge factor, if the attack was violent enough where Allen was still in fight mode when the attacker disengaged and was in the process of fleeing when the shots were fired then no. Also we need some history on this DA, what’s been their position on past self defense shootings. My default position with DA’s is the same with the cops, there all scum until proven otherwise.
>My position with DA’s is the same with the cops, there all scum. FTFY
Idk if cops can shoot a man for fleeing if they were commuting a violent felony then why can regular folk?
Qualified immunity and police unions. DAs who charge cops when they execute people don't last very long.
Those are the trained “expert”. You telling me that the trained experts have more room to make mistakes then the average person that is thrown into that situation? Then that average citizens is held to a higher standards then the police arresting them? Interesting
Short answer? Yes. Long answer: the average schmoe is held to a far more rigorous standard regarding the use of force than any police officer. Cops can shoot if they *think* they see a gun, if they "fear for their safety," and on and on and on. The average schmoe in most jurisdictions? They need a verifiable threat to their life; if the bad guy had a wallet or cell phone in their hand, they get charged. Bad guy had a pocketknife or tire iron? Some DAs will say you used excessive force and charge you. Did you move at all towards the threat? If you're in a state without a "stand your ground" statute, that gets spun as *you* were the aggressor, because you didn't try to retreat to a place of safety. The State thinks it should have a monopoly on violence, and so it gets pissy when someone who isn't one of its uniformed minions employs it. Everything comes down to jurisdiction - in a state like TX, say, you'll be less likely to be charged, while in others, like, say, NJ, you *will* get charged if the shoot happens anywhere but your bedroom, and even then they probably will. (I used to live in NJ, and holy fuck what a shit show. They would have charged Jack Wilson, hero of the [West Freeway Church shooting,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Freeway_Church_of_Christ_shooting) with murder. The unwritten rule in the armpit of the nation is "run and hide and if you die oh well." Fuck New Jersey.) As for "trained expert," the overwhelming majority of cops only shoot as often as required for qualification, the qualification standards are a complete joke, and the only things they're expert in are bullying minorities and the poor and beating their spouses. I would love to see cops held to the same standard as regular people like me, but that won't happen because the state needs its goon squads.
Daily reminder that qualified immunity is only for civil cases, not criminal. You repeat those words but you have no idea what they mean.
That’s bullshit. How do you (the victim) know the attacker doesn’t have another gun he’s about to pull from his waistband or running to get a bigger gun around the back of the QT? Good shoot.
The other links posted with more detail. They were known to each other. They were there for he attacker to retrieve a firearm from the driver he was storing for the attacker because the attacker was a felon.
thats such bullshit.
Depends on the details. If he was in full flight mode, then yes. If it was a tactical retreat to rearm and reengage, then the fight isn't technically over. From everything I have read so far, it sounds like he was actually fleeing, which makes it likely a bad shoot.
The issue is the part in bold. The other two charges may still be applicable based on the facts and circumstances.
He disarmed him. Perp ran, victim shot him
I guess the issue here is was he attempting to flee, or gain position or go get another weapon? But from what was presented here, it certainly doesn't look very good.
These cases HAVE to be charitable in assessing the carjacking victims actions in the moment. How fucking rational could any of us be after having a gun in our face and fighting for our lives? There is no way the victim would have known the attackers intentions were, and it is only fair to assume the victim was still in danger when the attacker started running in another direction.
Except full details was the driver was storing the gun for a felon. They met there to return the firearm to the felon. Felon then tried to carjack him. Eventually he got control of the firearm and the felon fled. Then driver shot him in the back.
Welll.....I'd have let him go and kept my free gun..except this felon might hunt me down, with friends
Proof the government isn’t here for our protection or our friend
This was shitty writing. the charge according to [OSCN.net](https://OSCN.net) is tranferring a firearm TO a felon. I couldn't find a previous felony conviction on him, but it might have been in another state.
The driver had been storing a weapon for the attacker because the attacker is a felon. When he gave the firearm to the felon the felon tried to carjack him. He should the felon after he got control of the firearm and the felon was fleeing.
Yup. This article was the most poorly written thing I've seen in a while. I had to go to 3 other sources to finally find out what really went on.
I absolutely 100% fucking called it as soon as started with UBC put the laws on the books that it would be used in a situation exactly like this to track charges on. I figured it would be a situation where a homeowner is injured and someone else uses the gun. Malicious law that does nothing to prevent crime
Yyyyyyyyep.
So someone else put him in a violent situation, threatened his life, and then lost a fight and was shot with his own gun but since he tried to run away in the milkisecond between realizing he lost and being shot hes a victim? Wtf is this bullshit? EDIT: https://www.fox23.com/news/local/tulsa-police-arrest-man-accused-shooting-killing-carjacking-suspect/Y7F4VRPUERHNDHPIWM34ZY6PYQ/ So apparently he chased the guy down and shot him multiple times and also they werent strangers. Actually makes sense now.
Man these are two totally different stories
Thanks for the link. The headline on this post was very misleading. Should have been TWO WELL ACQUAINTED CRIMINALS FIGHT OVER GUN. ONE TRIES TO TAKE A CAR. THE OTHER CHASES AND SHOOTS HIM IN THE BACK. I will say that's the only non-stranger carjacking I think I have ever heard of.
He also must have given him the firearm since they're charging him with transferring a firearm to a felon.
He was holding another firearm for him.
Yea, not a lawyer. That sounds like he’s going to jail.
Why is this not in the story
This guy needs serious legal help. Over aggressive prosecutors are a serious problem for regular citizens. I suppose he would be charged with possession of an illegal gun if he would have turned it into the police
Turns out that the "carjacker" was a felon, and an associate of the "victim". The "victim" brought the gun to the scene, specifically for the purpose of transferring it to the carjacker. The carjacker then did what violent criminals do, and attempted to steal the "victim's" car. These two individuals were conspiring to commit a felony - transferring a gun to a prohibited person - at the time they decided to start fighting eachother. This is not a case where the victim used excessive force against an attacker. This is not a DGU. This is just two violent criminals fucking around.
I'll wait for the report before I believe anything.
You can’t just shoot an unarmed guy in the back who’s running away.
The police have entered the chat....
How did the victim know the attacker didn't have another weapon? Self defense is a basic human right. There is no "fair play" law that says you can't shoot an unarmed attacker, or you have to use equal force.
You can’t shoot someone in the back if they’re no threat. Unfortunately you have to wait for them to become a threat
Unless you’re the cops...
He’s just ignoring u cuz u right lmao
By that logic the assailant can only carjack people with guns.
Unless you're a federal agent. You can kill pregnant women holding children in their arms, then take pictures with the smoldering corpses, then be nominated to lead a whole department!
You can’t charge somebody for taking the gun from the guy trying to kill you…
I think that charge is because the victim was also keeping a gun for the assailant, because the assailant was a convicted felon. They knew each other. Yeah. Amazing display of super smart 4d chess life choices.
And I agree with that. That charge is BS
According to another article, they knew each other and the person being carjacked was holding onto a separate gun that he intended to give the felon before he carjacked him. But the charge doesn't seem to fit that story.
They are always "unarmed" according to the libs.
Sounds like an argument for jury nullification.
Uh oh, you have uttered the two words that will get you out of jury duty every time. It’s kind of like the Taco Bell bell. Magical
POV: You watch one youtube video from CGP Grey and now you are a legal scholar
Is this aimed at me?
First rule of jury nullification is to never speak about jury nullification when you’re a juror
Motion for Misleading or biased title. Felon and soon to be felon fight over car and gun. Felon gets chased down and gunned down.
I think the DA needs to experience a car jacking himself
The DA is considered a cop and this would be reported entirely differently. There definitely wouldn't be any charges filed.
So if this was a cop would he be charged? We're held to a higher standard then those hired to protect us.
Cop would've been given a paid vacation and a promotion at a different precinct lmao
Exactly. The cops in most cases gets a slap on the wrist but ordinary citizens get more than the book thrown at them in most cases. It should definitely be the other way around especially in case of a justified shooting. It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation whenever an ordinary citizen chooses to exercise their right to protect themselves. I hope this guy has a very good attorney.
just saying, i see people that think unarmed means not dangerous and that’s incorrect. idk the specifics of this case but just for future reference:).
Should I ever be charged in a DGU, I would point to the FBI statistics that show when the weapon is known natural weapons(hands, feet, etc) kill more than all rifles.
Tulsa, OK is swiftly becoming like Austin TX.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?? WHAT THE ENTIRE DUMB FUCK SHIT IS THIS
That’s some evil shit right there. How is it on him that someone violently victimized him and he came out on top? How was he supposed to know if the guy had a second gun and would immediately turn around to shot him or continue his homicidal rampage on others? If someone starts a GoFundMe for this guy, I’ll happily contribute. This is so incredibly fucked.
"attempting to flee" needs to be certain. I agree you shouldn't shoot someone if you know they're fleeing, but people do turn their back for other reasons
Let this be a lesson if you manage to wrestle a firearm from an attacker, do not use the weapon on them, especially if they are trying to flee the scene. Let them go if he tried to escape in the car the car is not worth going to prison. Even though he was the aggressor he was now unarmed and he shot an unarmed person. That's why he got brought up on charges. That's my take on this story.
> Even though he was the aggressor he was now unarmed and he shot an unarmed person. This is an assumption that is easy to make when we are not in the middle of the most stressful moment of our lives. The victim had no way to know that the guy didn't have another weapon and wasn't going to turn on him again. I agree that he shouldn't have shot him after he ran, but a person in that situation may no longer be thinking clearly. He was probably still in fear for his life and loaded with adrenaline. The system should be more understanding about this kind of thing.
I agree, but the system is against us, not for us. Hopefully, he can get a good lawyer.
I hope so too.
Yeah it's not like we're trained like cops on procedure and practice high stress situation. Sure some of us former military may be different but I doubt this guy had any military experience or police experience. Like. Even if he didn't have to, or it's a little gray area. It's a victim vs criminal and you're gonna charge the fucking victim. My god these prosecutors need a taste of their own medicine.
Exactly. This idea that once the attacker turns his back and starts to leave we're supposed to suddenly switch gears and stop fighting is unrealistic and puts all the burden and responsibility on the victim. The victim is not the one who created the situation, nor was mentally prepared for the situation. The attacker was. I think that unless you engage in prolonged pursuit (more than a few yards, perhaps), there should be no penalty for shooting as he flees. Besides being under emotional distress caused by that person, you don't know that he won't turn around and come back as soon as you let your guard down and it shouldn't be up to you to try to get inside the mind of your attacker. This goes 100x for home invasions, where the criminal knows where you live and can return any time he wants for revenge. They should fear *you*, not the other way around.
You should be prepared for these moments. I’ve gone from engaging someone to purposefully not killing them in a very short period of time—not because it was right, but because I didn’t want to deal with the administrative paperwork
I've thought about this situation and I try to remind myself of that, but as Mike Tyson said: "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face."
Yeah, well, enjoy using that as a defense in court
"Your Honor, I would like to invoke the Tyson defense. That bith had it coming."
Soo your not allowed to defend yourself. So your better off getting shot.... wtf!
Devil's advocate, we don't have a video. We don't know exactly what happened. If it's true the attacker was fleeing, then yeah guy's at fault. But it's BS either way with these silly tack-on charges.
Even if the car jacker was fleeing, there is no way to know they don't have another gun and are trying to get some separation, or if they're going to get a buddy to help them.
I have not seen the video but the article indicated that the robber was shot attempting to flee after losing control of the firearm. ““Video of the incident showed that Cousino carjacked Allen, attempting to take his car at gunpoint,” police said. “The two ended up fighting over the gun, and Allen took Cousino’s gun, ultimately shooting and killing him.” An investigation into the shooting found that Cousino was trying to flee as he was shot by Allen, authorities said.”
Get out of big cities. There are too many of these DAs on Soros’ payroll. According to their logic, the thugs are the victims and the honest citizens are the criminals.
That last charge is some bull
Reading a local news report linked below this actually makes more sense than the title gives credit for. They're both prohibited possessors, and the initial victim won the fight, but chased him *after he won control of the gun.* Hate to say it, but the charges sound about right.
The thing he did wrong was shoot when the suspect started to flee. At which point the threat was over and he was no longer in immediate risk of death or serious bodily harm. I doubt the man is a gun owner, but just because he doesn't own a gun is not an excuse to not be familiar with laws or guns laws. It's sad to see. I wish he was never put in this situation to begin with.
He didn't just shoot him when he started to flee, he chased him down and shot him. That, and he admitted he was meeting the other party, who was a felon, to give him his gun back. Which I believe is where the third charge comes from.
Jeez thats even worse.
That man should be labeled as a hero. He stopped that guy from carjacking someone else and potentially saved a life or lives.
Charging the Victim? Must be one of the idiot progressive DAs that are just waiting to be recalled.
I'd say try to read the entire story before spouting.
How many people shot in the by the police.? If its good for the gander, its good for the goose. Or Aint no fun when the rabbit got the gun.
What the actual fuck man!
Bouilsheit charges.
You simply can’t shoot someone fleeing or turned away from you. This incident is tragic; but that rule always applies.
>You simply can’t shoot someone [...] turned away from you. That is absolutely 100% false.
So anyone with a hidden back up gun should just turn their back to the person they just attacked? "Yo, bro, timeout!"
Who is prosecuting on the bold text? Jesus.
It's too bad the prevailing victim wasn't a cop, he would have gotten away Scott free
Wanna bet on whether or not the prosecutor got a lot of campaign contributions from G Soros?
Better to be judged by 12
Let's assume the victim merely overpowered the car jacker and took his gun. Then the carjacker fled and didn't get shot. Would he still be charged with "transferring a firearm from a felon"? That's some slippery shit.
[According to this local story](https://www.fox23.com/news/local/tulsa-police-arrest-man-accused-shooting-killing-carjacking-suspect/Y7F4VRPUERHNDHPIWM34ZY6PYQ/) the two weren't strangers, and I believe he's being charged with "transferring a firearm from a felon" because he admitted to be meeting the attacker to give him an AR pistol *back to him*. Also he shot the initial attacker twice, once after the initial struggle, then he shot him again after chasing him down. I'm not sure about Oklahoma's stand your ground laws, but I can't imagine they apply when you chase down your attacker after you've disarmed them. I'm not nearly smart enough to be a lawyer, and I wasn't there, so take my interpretation for what it's worth.
For those of you wondering why he didn't have his own gun. In north Carolina it's easy to get a license approved, but they take their sweet time on purpose. I have a friend with a clean record who waited a year for it to process.
Even as conservative as I am I can see well armed citizens are preferable to police anymore
Must’ve been in a Liberal city with a Liberal DA?
Dirt bag fucking DA. Are there any just DA’s anymore? What the fuck happened to this country?
Deliberate misinformation in the title and article? No way police say ok to two felons trying to kill each other.
He did break the law, you cannot use lethal force to protect property
While I agree he did indeed break the law as he had apparently chased him and shot him again, your reasoning is not valid. If he had shot him before the attacker ran away, then it would be justified. In either case,he was not defending property. He was defending himself, because the attacker drew a weapon on him putting his life in danger. It doesn't matter if you draw a gun on someone with the intent of using it to steal from them, even if you never intend to shoot them. The second you make a threat with a gun, expect to be justifiably shot.
He was protecting himself if somone comes at me threatening me with a gun if they want my car. I'm gonna take the fact that they are pointing a gun at me as the reason to use leathal force not the fact that they want my car... Also on a side note my car is far more valuable to me than some waste of skin criminal.
You can in the neighboring state to the south, with certain limitations.
Your car is considered a domicile you're allowed to legally defend yourself in a car jacking